Judge it!
This is the same scenario used by tobacco and car companies to increase profit at the expense of the people. While articles constantly cast doubt on global warming the scientific community is nearly united proving that industry has the influence to affect the content of our "free press".
Wake up it is almost to late.
Global Warming Con Job?
Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming? The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit -- especially if you're in some parts of the energy business.
Comments
|
|
||||
|
Is it possible to agree that the globe is warming without agreeing that we humans are making a substantial contribution
since we never have before in the many previous instances of global warming? Or is it possible to tease out the partial contribution that we may be making this time since without knowing that we cannot determine what effects our efforts at diminishing greenhouse gases will have, if any. The earth warmed up many times in the past to the extent that many areas must have been uninhabitable for us. Or is this a case of 'a lie told in a good cause is no sin'. |
||||
The evidence says otherwise. Although the earthe has been both hotter and colder the earth has not warmed this fast in the last 600 to 800 thousand years. We have no way to prove earlier cycles but good information exists for this period. |
||||
Cliff, check your facts. Most of the so-called 'science' behind Mann's "Hockey Stick" has been proven to be faulty. Also, over half of the 'warming' since 1880 occurred up until 1940. After that, there was a 30 year 'cooling' and since a slight warming until 1998. Since the 1998 the temperatures have been flat and slighty dropping. There is a TON of strong science behind the opposing view. The only 'money' driving this deal is on the side of the Global Warming nuts. They're trying to get government to take it from all of us and give it to them. Industry has no real interest in fighting this, since they will also make alot of money trying to 'fix' this so-called problem. This is a hoax and a left-wing power-play, pure and simple. |
||||
|
Thank you for your comments gentlemen. On balance I am prepared to agree that the globe is warmer than it once was.
(Period) I agree to nothing more than that. Also, I am prepared to agree that it is not a good thing to pollute our atmosphere needlessly. You do not need to lie to me that there is a connection between these two things,when you don't know. I am prepared to do what I can to reduce artmospheric pollution, just as a matter of good housekeeping (or should that be good earthkeeping),without the insulting 'chicken little' treatment.I am not an idiot that need to be panicked into action. |
||||
Your information is biased, back it up, the warmest decade in the last 400 years is the last ten years. There are virtually no peer reviewed and published works backing your position and hundreds in dispute of it. Editorial arguments are not science no matter how much is paid for them. The various ice core studies documenting the record I spoke of covering the last 6 to 8 hundred thousand years is good science. Will minor adjustments be made to the data as techniques are improved? yes of course but the work is well done. |
||||
The Holocene warming time was much,much warmer than today. Each warming period since then has been of a lower amplitude and the cooling periods of a higher amplitude. This means the warming periods are getting weaker and the cooling periods getting stronger. This recent warming is already being predicted to flame out in a decade and a new cooling cycle begins.It will be interesting how this prediction will pan out. The planet has overall been cooling for 10,000 years. Meanwhile the Sun is at its most radiant in at least 1,000 years.This would excerbate the CO2 effect beyond the usual levels.Since there is an increase of incoming solar rays.Therefore there is more infrared rays for the CO2 to absorb and reradiate.But only to a certain point since it is on a LOGARITHMIC curve at certain spectral frequencies. CO2 is an overrated greenhouse since it is still a TRACE GAS.Its effects is minimal in humid regions and greatest in polar regions. Antartica is so far not supporting the warming predictions for that region based on undenied increasing CO2 atmospheric gas levels. It has been a long running mistake to blame CO2 increases on ALL the observed global warming we see today.In the mid 1980's after the first well documented big El-Ninyo event of 1983,people such as James Hansen and other quickly blamed it on CO2 increases in the atmosphere. Since then it has been revealed that it is the changing SUN's output that effects the El-Ninyo La-Ninya cycle. It is better to look at ALL the radiative forcings from Land use to the changing sun to changes in the atmosphere's chemistry and so on. CO2 is only one of the possible causes of global warming. |
||||
|
I have seen the Ice Core data and I believe that it actually disputes the CO2/heat theory in that the world heated and then there is a rise in CO2. In any event it does not change the base issue in that the main arguement is not whether or not we are having global climate change but how much if any it is being driven by mans activities. In Roman times North Africa was the breadbasket of the empire. Anatolia was a vast oak forest and grapes could not be grown in Germany as the season was too short. Now North Africa is a net food importer. Much of Australia was an inland sea. Now it is a desert with salt ruining the soil in many areas. Why did this occur? The world warmed. At one time Alaska and Antartica were warm areas with forests and plains and seasons. Now they are forbidding frosty wastelands. Why did this occur? The world cooled. Both of these events occured before man was industrialized, even before we were the dominant species. Did the dinosaurs have an industrial base that we haven't found? I believe that we are going through global climate change, some warming , some cooling. Twenty years ago we were going into a ice age,(read the book Fallen Angles SF), now the same scientist are calling for global warming. They sound much like weather forcasters and should probably be given the same amout of heed of there opinins.
Mike J |
||||
Many things are warming the earth including millions of engines running, millions of motors running as well as giant hardscapes such as cities and highways. Many of mans activities cause heat and it all counts.I will continue to side with the majority of respected scientist as my research to date of the differing opinions have mostly led back to industry funded sources and a minority of scientists asking good dissenting questions which help clarify the issues. |
||||
|
Global Cycles of hot or cold have always been on a cyclic pattern over thousands of years with usually a "rapid" switch over between those phases (over about 2000yrs)
The worry in the current mass of effects by man is that it will flick the switchover far stronger than usual even to the extent of a permanent switch that renders all of the planet being desert and NO ice areas thus NO temperate food growing areas remaining. For those who doubt the effect of mans pollution on the global warming front also study GLOBAL DARKENING that covers the effects of pollutants made by man in burning fuels such as coal and which leads to acid rain that is killing off the tops of the forests and thence the trees in Asia. It is a phenomena mainly found below Asia over the Indian ocean and because this stops the suns power reaching the earths surface stops global warming in that area, but as the pollutants causing it are also damaging the planet reintroducing it across the earths surface en total is not the response to global warming ALL POLLUTION MUST BE STOPPED but if then the planet still warms it is the natural cycle and sufficient non desert non ice cap should remain for the existance of man to continue. It must also be remembered that naturally only 500,000 can be supported by the planet and only manufactured food enables there to be 6,000,000 of us. Hey GET your lottery ticket now for the CULL |
||||
|
It's easy for HuskerMac to say things against global warming out in Omaha, nebraska, because unless his grandparents live in Sacramento and don't have air conditioning like mine, I doubt he is being affected too directly by it. Maybe the current drought that is covering the midwest will help him put two and two together. Or maybe he could go to New Orleans and see what more violent hurricanes have done to the people there.
|
||||
He he he, What you mean is just tag along with the Majority. You made a red herring when you whine about funding sources.How about sticking to the topic of Global warming instead? You provided no cognitive rebuttal. This means you are basically ignorant of the issue. Thank you. |
||||
Did you know that the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER keeps data on Hurricanes? Have you noticed that this Hurricans season is off to a very slow start compared to last year? He he he. |
||||
You have made many claims, none of it with sources. For all we know you have made it all up and like I said since it is in dispute with the majority of qualified Sience I will go with the majority until convinced otherwise. My comment on funding is pertinent in that the majority of dissent is funded by those who have an economic interest in the outcome and therefore there is a conflict of interest. All of the causes interact, none can be considered alone. The really sad thing is that even if the world was not warming it would be worth cleaning up the sewer that is our sky, oceans and freshwater sources for a huge number of good reasons not the least of which is to live like a human being and not like a rat in its' own garbage. |
||||
|
No one disputes that pollution should be minimized. The dispute is over the Kyoto accord and the junk science that drives it. Every time a problem is found with the results,(they ran it for the period from 1900 - 1999 where we have very good temp data and the program said the average temp should be 4 C warmer than it is), The "scientists" say it is a minor glitch and adjust the program so it now "works". It is similar to the Torpedoes the US used in WWII. The test was for the torpedo to run 5000 yds at 40 feet. the manufacturers made the controls so that the torpedo ran to exactly this parameters. When fired in non test mode guess what? Over 50% ran at 40 ft regardless of the depth they were set for. The Kyoto programs seem to be the same. No mater what parameters are set in,(including total elimination of all GHG), the earth still warms. Net result of no pollution is a reduction in the temp rise of a whopping 1.5 C.(2 F). The earth still warms no mater what. Last I checked they were on the forth or fifth totls rewrite of the program. If it sounds like junk science, smells like junk science, and looks like junk science please excuse me for not tasting it.
Mike J |
||||
He he, I deliberately kept the links out to expose your ignorance. You yourself did not post any links either in the post I origionally responded.He he he....... All the information I posted earlier are legitimate information and you could not even make ANY kind of rebutting comments on any of it at all. Like I said you offer an empty paper plate. Thank you. |
||||
I checked several legitimate links and found none of your info to be either correct or more than a snippet of info out of context. My point earlier was that warming at current rates is unpecedented. "A warming of 1.1°F over the past century and a further 2.5-10.4°F over the 21st century, as projected by IPCC, may appear minor compared to short-term weather changes from night to day and winter to summer. But in global climate terms, a warming at this rate would be much larger and faster than any of the climatic changes over the past 10,000 years. Global temperatures during the last ice age (about 20,000 years ago) were "only" 9°F cooler than today, but that was enough to allow massive ice sheets to reach as far south as the Great Lakes and New York City. The warming that humans are causing will change Earth's climate in the opposite direction, but tens or possibly a hundred times faster than natural rates of climate change. Warming of a few degrees would lead to more frequent droughts and heat waves, cause greater rainfall, and possibly change the strength of storms. It is possible that some areas would benefit from global warming even as other areas were harmed. Certain farming areas, for example, could enjoy a longer growing season, while others suffer from more frequent droughts. Local impacts, however, are the most difficult to predict, making it difficult to know who will benefit and who will not, and for how long these conditions will persist, as the warming continues and the climate keeps changing." |
||||
|
Oh yes and the source,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf... Although why I go to this much trouble for someone that appears to be little more than a name calling troll I am not sure. |
||||
|
If you would like an intelligent explanation of history of the worlds temperature rather than an unsubstantiated opinion look over this website that backs up everything it claims with the actual studies etc. with easy to use links.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ |
||||
Kudos Cliff: Sometimes people only hear what they want too! None are so blind as those who refuse to see. A deaf ear and a blind eye works for some people. If we admit there is a problem and humans could be part of the solution. We might have to delve deeper to see how we can leave the Earth in better shape for future generations! Some of us are making major changes, because we recognize there is some contributions we can make to improve Mother Earth! Thanks for caring and sharing! |
||||
|
||||
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
Other Recent Top Stories Discussions
Search the Top Stories Forum:
Search the Top Stories Forum:
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| I hate Jesus (non believers ONLY) (Nov '08) | 4 min | El Gato | 26423 |
| What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) | 5 min | FridaCalhoun | 54809 |
| Ask me a trivia question (Oct '08) | 5 min | Aged | 183106 |
| Multiculturalism is stupid | 5 min | True Magneti... | 56 |
| Glen Beck is a great AMEICAN | 5 min | Ace | 5962 |
| Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) | 6 min | Que Avanza 8 | 133723 |
| Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage | 7 min | ACLU-Tom | 5530 |
Related Topix Forums:
Global Warming
Daily Horoscope for December 26
Pisces
Mercury's retro phase in Capricorn will raise questions in your mind about a friend or loved one during the next two weeks. You might wonder what they're playing at and have to ask them to be straight with you, or you could work hard at overcoming the current problems between you so you're able to enter a much more positive phase in your relationship.
|
Reach local customers. Engage a specific demographic. Maximize business-to-business opportunities. Topix can deliver your message.
|
Copyright ©2009 Topix LLC
